B-1095 ' March 1970 i T"’/“ f» ‘ ‘-~/\r-;'~; 1:‘ g v ~ - v~ r1 -. > ‘ l E31 yYze ‘f/VY? ,____v ’m~ “ I f. - L~/< j f, Twit’ u’ l . ' ‘Muqwr f Texas A&M University i Agricultural Experiment Station, H. O. Kunkel, Acting Director, College Station, Texas Contents Introduction ________________________________________________ __ Areas of Adaptation ______________________________ Uses ............................................................. ____§ Feed .............................. ______________________ Winter Pasture _________________________________ ' Culture ....................................................... Varieties .................................................. Performance Trials ................................ Winter Wheat .................................... Spring Wheat ................................... "pf Quality _____________________________________________________ Diseases ..................................................... Leaf Rust .......................................... Stem Rust ...................................... .. Stripe Rust .......................................... .;'-_l Septoria .............................................. "i. I: Powdery Mildew ............................... Smuts ................................................... Root Rots ........................................... Wheat Streak Mosaic ....................... Insects; ...................................................... Weeds ........................................................ Wheat Improvement .............................. Acknowledgments _____________________________________ Literature Cited ....................................... HEAT IS THE THIRD MOST VALUABLE CASH CROP in Texas, exceeded in acreage only by cotton and grain sorghum. The 10-year average seeded acreage, 1959-68, was 4,313,100 acres. The har- vested acreage was 3,278,000 acres with produc- tion averaging 65,904,300 bushels or 20.1 bushels per acre. Annual and average production data as reported by the USDA Crop Reporting Serv- ice (17) are given in Table 1. The largest acre- age ever grown in Texas was in 1947 when 7,310,000 acres produced 124,270,000 bushels of wheat. The smallest harvested acreage since 1925 was in 1955, when severe drouth reduced the harvested crop to 1,508,000 acres and production to only 14,326,000 bushels. Wheat was first grown commercially in Texas near Sherman about 1833. The acreage expanded greatly in North Central Texas after 1850 because of rapid settlement of the State and introduction of the well-adapted Mediter- ranean strain of wheat. A major family-flour industry developed in the Fort Worth-Dallas- Sherman and nearby areas between 1875 and 1900. The distribution of wheat in Texas in 1899 is shown in Figure 1. After 1900, there was rapid development of dry land farming in the Rolling and High Plains of Texas, and by 1919 there were three major Wheat producing areas—North Central, the northern Rolling Plains and the High Plains, Figure 2. More than half of the state acreage is now grown on the High Plains, and approximately half of this now is irrigated. Because of the recent develop- ment of improved varieties and use of the crop for winter pasture, there has been some expan- sion of acreage in South Texas during the past 10 years. The distribution of the seeded acreage of wheat in Texas in 1968 is shown in Figure 3 (17). *Respectively, professor and small grains section leader, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M Uni- versity, and former research agronomist, Crops Research Division, ARS, USDA, College Station; professor in charge, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, USDA Southwestern Great Plains Research Center at Bush- land; research agronomist, Crops Research Division, ARS, USDA, College Station; research assistant, Texas A&M Agricultural Research Station at Chillicothe; and assistant professor, Soil and Crop Sciences Department, Texas A&M University. eat Production in Texas TABLE 1. ANNUAL SEEDED AND HARVESTED WINTER WHEAT ACREAGE AND PRODUCTION IN TEXAS, 1959-68. Acreage Production, Yield per Year Seeded Harvested bushels acre 1959 4,029,000 3,228,000 54,876,000 17.0 1960 4,150,000 3,583,000 78,826,000 22.0 1961 4,067,000 3,690,000 84,870,000 23.0 1962 3,498,000 2,731,000 43,696,000 16.0 1963 4,023,000 2,458,000 45,473,000 18.5 1964 4,184,000 3,245,000 64,900,000 20.0 1965 4,435,000 3,472,000 76,384,000 22.0 1966 4,258,000 3,229,000 72,652,000 22.5 1967 5,578,000 3,326,000 53,216,000 16.0 1968 4,909,000 3,825,000 84,150,000 22.0 Average 4,313,100 3,278,700 65,904,300 20.1 ‘"2000 Ac]; ts Figure 1. Wheat production in Texas, 1899. AREAS OF ADAPTATION , Wheat is grown over a wide range of cli- matic conditions and 0n many soil types in Texas. It does better on well-drained fertile soils than on sandy-type soils. Typically, the wheat acre- age of the Rolling and High Plains and of Cen- tral Texas is found on the “tighter” soils. Sandy- type soils are used to grow peanuts, grain sorghum, cotton and feed crops. Climatic conditions, such as winter tempera- tures, rainfall and humidity are important in establishing the limitations of varieties and mar- ket types grown in Texas. For easy reference "Z000 ACRES Figure 2. Wheat production in Texas, 1919. 4 1. Dot = 1,000 Acres Figure 3. Distribution of wheat in Texas, in making recommendations and d ditions, the State is divided into or growing areas, Figure 4. Each includes one or more districts of the Agricultural Extension Service. in general, also coincide with the only approximate. Table 2 gives the harvested acreages and production district and research area. The units of the Texas Agricultural tion and cooperating “off-station” Research area I 11 3,6,7 III m- um. . Perryton . Denton Enter 015. Shennan . Bushland I16. Overton Wellington I17. McGregor Plainview I18. Temple oIIIIooIOo ._. Qwgwosmbwm-I Lubbock I19. College Station . Chillicothe I20. Prairie View . Iowa Park I21. Beaunont . Spur I22. Beeville . Abilene 023. Robstmm I11. Pecos ' I24. Crystal City I12. El Paso I25. Heslaco I13. San Angelo I Field Units Texas Agricultural Experiment Station o Cooperative Farm Research Sites _Figure 4. Small grains and flax research mg stations. as. ACREAGES AND PRODUCTION OF WHEAT BY EXTENSION DISTRICTS AND RESEARCH TEST- 1968‘ Percent Percent of Segged each district acrea e of state bar? g-testing Average Average Har- Production, vested area Land use area seeded harvested Seeded vested bushels for grain I Northern High Plains 2,139,650 1,660,690 43.6 43.3 38,997,395 77.8 I Southern High Plains‘ 520,950 368,000 10.6 9.6 9,052,500 70.6 II Northern Low Rolling Plains 1,101,300 956,230 22.4 25.0 20,882,300 86.8 _- II Trans-Pecos 33,550 24,340 0.7 0.6 863,900 72.5 II Southern Low Rolling Plains j and upper Edwards Plateau 319,350 261,200 6.5 6.8 4,259,600 81.7 " III North Central Blacklands, ., y, Prairies and Cross Timbers 401,200 328,100 8.2 8.6 6,080,000 81.8 III Northeast Timberlands 16,000 7,850 0.3 0.2 11,675‘ 49.1 IV Central Blacklands, Prairies I and Cross Timbers 192,800 126,900 3.9 3.3 2,127,000 65.8 IV Central East Timberlands 1,800 0 0 5 IV Southeast Texas and upper coast 21,270 2,290 0.4 0.1 37,500 10.8 p. V South Central Blacklands, Prairies and Coastal Bend 124,640 69,500 2.5 1.8 1,216,100 55.8 ‘ V Rio Grande Plain, South Texas 36,490 19,900 0.7 0.5 487,800 54.5 l‘ I reference, Palmer (17). r shown on this map. Table 3 gives some ‘ogical and other information for each of i tions. era] market classes or types of wheat are i: Texas. More than 90 percent of the .7_ is seeded with hard red winter wheat . Approximately 6 percent of the acre- with soft red winter wheat varie- ost of this acreage is in the Fort Worth- Dallas-Sherman area. A small amount of hard red spring and durum wheat is grown some seasons. Among the hard red winter varieties, there is a wide range of growth habit types ranging from prostrate-growing, highly cold tolerant and obligate Winter types, through intermediate, more erect-growing types, to near-spring type varie- ties With low cold tolerance. ELEVATION AND SELECTED CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA FOR RESEARCH STATIONS IN TEXAS Precipitation Avera e date of Num- - Length H? ber Long-time mean Mean temperatures of First Last Eleva- years An- Growing Maxi- Mini- growing fall spring tion record nual season‘ mum mum Mean season frost frost 2930 20.4 12.0 70.7 42.1 57.0 185 Oct. 22 Apr. 20 3825 26 18.3 11.0 72.0 42.0 57.0 192 Oct. 28 Apr. 18 3370 36 19.0 11.9 73.7 45.7 59.7 206 Nov. 2 Apr. 10 2320 23.1 15.7 74.0 978 43 29.2 21.4 78.0 51.7 64.5 211 Nov. 29 Mar. 30 1406 63 24.4 17.0 76.6 50.2 63.4 217 Nov. 6 Apr. 3 1750 83 24.3 13.6 76.0 53.0 64.5 229 Nov. 13 Mar. 23 3641 19 6.9 3.7 79.0 44.8 61.9 238 Oct. 31 Apr. 3 621 44 32.3 24.9 77.5 52.6 64.2 237 Nov. 15 Mar. 24 1466 27 26.9 23.8 77.1 53.3 65.2 239 Nov. 13 Mar. 21 520 63 43.9 28.7 76.3 55.3 65.8 249 Nov. 17 Mar. 12 713 34 31.6 27.6 740-; 56 34.0 27.3 78.9 55.6 67.3 252 Nov. 22 Mar. 15 I Station 308 78 39.8 30.1 79.1 57.1 68.2 263 Nov. 27 Mar. 8 ,View 250 18 39.3 30.6 76.0 57.0 67.0 263 Nov. 30 Mar. 5 nt 26 55 54.1 39.5 78.3 58.5 68.5 276 Nov. 28 Feb. 26 ~-. 240 78 29.8 22.2 82.1 60.0 70.9 291 Dec. 6 Feb. 20 , 100 25 27.3 19.9 311 Dec. 23 Feb. 15 r through May. TABLE 4. ANALYSIS OF SOME TEXAS-GROWN GRAINS’ Nitrogen Crude free Digestible Crop Protein fibre extract Water Ash nutrients Oats 11.4 12.8 58.6 8.6 3.7 8.9 Barley 12.0 6.3 67.5 9.3 2.8 9.6 Corn 10.4 4.4 72.5 9.1 1.3 6.4 Grain sorghum 11.1 2.9 70.9 10.7 1.9 8.1 Wheat 14.0 1 7 69.4 10.0 1.9 11.3 ‘Taken from Texas Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 461, “The Composition and Utilization of Texas Feeding Stuffs.” USES Practically all wheat grown for grain is used in some phase of the milling industry. The best grades of high quality varieties are used to pro- duce commercial bakery flour. Lower grades and less desirable varieties are used in family flours. Byproducts of both types are used in the feed industry. Large quantities o-f both wheat and flour are exported from the state. Feed Normally the best grades of wheat are too valuable for use as livestock feed, so wheat does not compete with feed grains, except when the price of wheat is low. Wheat contains more digestible and total protein and less crude fiber than most feed grains; so the rations must be adjusted accordingly. The recently developed livestock feeding industry of Northwest Texas may find it economical to use wheat, especially low grades, for feed or for supplement to grains of lower protein. The analysis of some Texas feed grains is given in Table 4. Recent research to compare wheat with milo for fattening cattle is given in Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station Miscellaneous Publication 80 (28). Winter Pasture Wheat has been used for livestock pasture since the State was settled because it is one of the few forage crops which can be grown during the winter months. The relatively mild winters Figure 5. Livestock on small grain pasture during the winter months, Prairie View, 1962. ‘ . in Texas permit wheat to grow and p? highly palatable, succulent feed of 20 toi cent protein. A high proportion of the acreage is grazed to some extent, i Under irrigation and in high rainfall value of the crop for winter pasture or exceed the value of the grain crop. Q of the acreage the livestock are remov, spring, and the crop is permitted to p; grain crop. When moisture for matu grain crop is limited or the value of t exceeds that for grain, wheat may be E until it matures. Wheat, sown for winter pasture or; ture and grain, should grow 4 to 6 wee; livestock are permitted to graze the cro grazing, early grazing, severe tramping ground is soft or grazing in the spring i spike has started to develop may res _', , duced grain yields. Early maturing varii more frequently injured by this prac late maturing varieties. i s‘ Varieties differ in the amount and. which they produce the maximum a , forage. Results of grazing managemeg, have been published by Holt (12, 13) (5), Cook (8), McLean and Norris (14),; reader is referred to these for greater "g grazing management. Y; ‘a; CULTURE Cultural operations for wheat are those for other small grains. They greatly over the State that only limi , tions can be made here. Dryland whi on the High and Rolling Plains traditi been one of continuous cropping b were few other crops with which rotated in a practical manner. Alter,‘ and summer fallow increases the c stable yields but may not always be i, Wheat-sorghum-fallow, a three-season may be more practical. Largescale ‘f with one-way plows or sweep-type i’ permit rapid preparation of land harvest. Early land preparation imp f, ditions for penetration of summer f‘ destroys weed growth that may ha, Leaving the stubble as a mulch aids ing wind erosion, Figure 6. Another that of delayed fallow in which the l cultivated until the following spring. . Drilling wheat in a trashy seedbed prepared eep-type plow. ‘I if ligation has become an important factor : production in Texas. Most of the irri- = reage is on the High Plains, Research From an estimated 66,046 acres of irri- heat in 1939, the practice expanded to in 1948, to 686,280 in 1959 to 1,052,424 $419681. Cultural practices for irrigated are somewhat different from those for “ wheat. Because the other major crops area, grain sorghum and cotton, occupy Id until late in the fall, it is difficult to {with these crops. If land retired from 'on (diverted acres) can be used, then ‘ ops and the retired acreage can be worked i rotation with Wheat. Where Wheat fol- eat or other small grain crop, the stubble i§beplowed and the straw worked into the gins Irrigation Survey. 1968. Texas Extension . f Mimeographed. Compiled by Leon New, area specialist. Irrigating wheat by using contour furrows as f. 'des and spreaders. soil so it will decay as rapidly as possible. Weeds and volunteer grain should be controlled during the summer months. The final land prepara- tion is usually made with sweeps or listers to pre- pare contour ridges for later irrigation, Figure 7. Continuous wheat production under irriga- tion soon depletes the soil nutrients so that the addition of commercial fertilizer is essential for economical wheat production. Also, animal ma- nure from feedlots nearby may'be available at certain locations. The proper balance of water and plant nutrients is not only essential for eco- nomical and efficient use of fertilizer but for the production of adequate grain protein levels. High yields, without adequate soil nitrogen, may cause the production of low quantity of protein in the grain. Extensive studies of the effects of fertilizer on irrigated wheat were carried out by Pope (20), Table 5. He reported that the amount and time of application of fertilizer depend upon pre- vious cropping history of the field. Generally, the application of nitrogen and phosphorus, in combinations of 40 to 80 pounds of each, were the most profitable for grain production and produced satisfactory protein content of grain. Response from phosphorous was less than from nitrogen. Also, these applications gave the greater increases in production. Much heavier applica- tions are frequently made on wheat used prin- cipally for grazing. In most instances, the source of nitrogen was not a critical factor. One excep- tion was that anhydrous ammonia produced grain with the highest protein. Although Wheat uses relatively small amounts of moisture during the fall and winter, under High Plains conditions it requires good moisture from a preplant irrigation or from rainfall to establish a good root system. This is highly desirable in order for the plants to Withstand low temperatures and to prevent damage from live- stock grazing. During the boot and heading TABLE 5. THE INFLUENCE OF NITROGEN RATES ON GRAIN YIELDS, PROTEIN CONTENT AND FOR- AGE YIELDS ON THE HIGH PLAINS OF TEXAS, 1957- 61(20) Clay-loam soils Sandy-clay soils 5-year Pro- 4-year Pro- Pounds grain tein grain tein Pounds ferti- yields, con- yields, con- air-dry lizer bushels tent, bushels tent, forage per acre per per- per per- per N-P acre cent acre cent acre 0 34.3 10.1 34.9 11.9 634 40-0 42.3 11.0 47.6 13.1 60-0 1885 80-0 46.5 12.3 51.2 14.8 120-0 51.4 2701 160-0 46.0 13.4 2707 40-40 57.7 11.7 40-80 60.3 11.3 80-40 59.4 13.8 80-80 64.4 13.0 an: or wnen use-memes PER on 0.4 0.3 JQLMING RIEENING 0.2 —- -- 0 l _ Figure 8. Rate of water u, ' _ ter wheat under optimum f conditions with times and a‘: gpgmg spring irrigation shown, USD; _ |RR|GAT|ON western Great Plains Resep, f, f, f, 0 ter at Bushland. o l 1 l L l l l- l V OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE stages, wheat may use up to 0.3 inch of water per day, Figure 8. A crop yielding 45 to 50 bushels per acre will require 27 to 30 inches of water during the growing season. For best growth, this should be distributed during the season to coincide with the rate of water use by the crop. Lodging is an important problem when tall varieties are heavily irrigated or fertilized, Fig- ure 9. Varieties of short stature and good straw strength should be selected under ditions. New semidwarf varieties, Stu ‘\ Caprock, as well as the variety Tascosa, if suited to growing under these conditio thermore, they are strong gluten whea , will produce grain of satisfactory mill baking characteristics. 3 Wheat often is grown continuouslyg same land in the Rolling Plains, Area I~ age rainfall in this area ranges from a Figure 9. g ing of win, grown with Hereford, 9i; éand only small areas have water avail- irrigation. Because of the poor distri- If rainfall and of soil types which do not isture effectively, summer fallowing one ~‘ insure production the second year is Iod risk in this area. Summer fallow practiced extensively, except as it is util- diverted acres. er continuous wheat production, con- of moisture from summer rains is prac- l immediately plowing the stubble after l and keeping the land free of volunteer 1| weeds until fall planting time. One- s or sweeps are used almost universally iipurpose, and fields are frequently plowed ours after harvest. Rotation of wheat ; mes or nongrass crops is desirable for t»: Weeds, some insects and some diseases. p, this may not be practical because of crops adapted to this area. Recently, eage has expanded in this area and fs a desirable crop to rotate with wheat source of income. w production in the more humid Areas, nd V is handled on a much smaller scale he two areas previously described. Usu- is grown in rotation with corn, grain ' cotton, grass or legume feed crops. rghum, ahead of wheat in the rotation, t ess fall growth of wheat because of lack ble nitrogen in the surface soil. Early f» of grain sorghum stubble and the of nitrogen to the soil will speed up the roots and stubble and provide better for wheat. Application of fertilizer 5C, after a soil test to determine local * pd consultation with the local county ually pays dividends in increased grain j yields throughout these higher rain- o I" ing is a problem in these areas, and be considered in selecting varieties and ing fertilizers. Rich (24) showed in ‘t Denton that the new semidwarf variety Semidwarf Sturdy vs. Kaw, tall variety, in lizer test, Denton, 1967. TABLE 6. SUGGESTED RATES AND DATES OF SEEDING WHEAT IN TEXAS AND DATE FOR REMOVAL OF LIVESTOCK FOR GRAIN CROP PRODUCTION Date of seeding Rate of - For For Date of —-$ie-@£g—— grain grain live- Non and produc- stock Irri- irri- forage tion “take- Areas gated gated uses only of ”‘ I 60 30 Sept. 1 Sept. 20 Mar. 1 II 6O 45 Sept. 15 Oct. 1 Mar. 1 III 60 Sept. 15 Oct. 15 Feb. 15 IV 75 Oct. 1 Nov. 1 Feb. 15 V 75 75 Oct. 1 Nov. 152 Feb. 1 ‘Date livestock should be removed if a grain crop is to be produced. zDaylength neutral Mexican varieties should not be seeded before December 15. Sturdy not only stands without lodging, but also uses fertilizer more efficiently in grain produc- tion as compared to tall varieties, Figure 10. Additional data on the response to fertilizers of small grain in grain and forage production are given by Spence and Dudley (26), Cook (8) and McLean and Norris (14). Rates and dates of seeding wheat vary greatly because of the wide range of climatic conditions and uses made of the crop. Nearly all wheat in Texas is fall sown, but in favorable spring seasons small acreages may be spring sown in Northwest Texas. Suggested rates and dates of seeding in the several areas under cer- tain conditions are given in Table 6. Daylength neutral spring-type varieties, especially certain Mexican varieties, should be seeded 15 to 30 days later than other varieties in South Texas. Other- wise, they may head early and may be damaged by late freezes. Suggested “take-off” dates for livestock to permit production of a grain crop are given. VARIETIES The first wheat variety grown in Texas, on which records have been found, was the “Little Red May” variety brought by settlers from Mis- souri into the Dallas area before 1850. About 1870, the Mediterranean type strains were brought in by settlers from the East. These two types made up the majority of the acreage for many years. When the first U.S. Department of Agriculture wheat variety survey was made in 1919, 58 percent of the State acreage was to soft red winter wheat varieties. The acreage of soft winter wheat declined rapidly after 1919, but a substantial acreage (about 6 percent) is still sown to soft wheats in North Central Texas. The hard red winter, Turkey-type wheats brought to Central Kansas by Russian immi- grants about 1878 soon spread into the High Plains of Texas. After 1900, this type rapidly replaced all others, except in North Central Texas. Pure line selections from Turkey (such 9 8Q - i Soft red winter varieties 80 ?"\ -—--— Turkey, Kanred group l \ —--— Blackhull group 70‘ \ ---- -- Tenmarq, Concho, Westar group 7° I ———- Early group-E Bkl , Triunph, Wichita 6o l \ '''' " New high quality group-Tascosa, Caddo, Sturdy 60 50 Percent of total acreage b Q 20 Figure 11. P, 0f state ac voted to vari 1 in Texas, 191 0 / O\ Q‘ O\ Q‘ Ch <1’ O5 d‘ co r- €\I 1N 0") M <1" <1‘ LO LO KO £0 Oi Oi O5 @ Ch U\ G\ O\ O3 U! O\ l- I- 1- r—- v- r— l- |— |— r- p- as Kanred, Blackhull, Kharkof) made up nearly ing from plant breeding efforts in T; 80 percent of the total by 1929 and were grown other states occupied large acreages fr 0n large aereages _unt1l the late 1940 S- The to 1959. More recently, varieties of hi Percentages 0f melee Varlety grellps SOWII 111 potential, good agronomic characterist'_ Texas are Shown 1n Flgure 11- test weight and quality (Crockett, Tasc Early maturing varieties (Early Blackhull, do» _M11am’ Sturdy and Capmck) h“ Wichita and the Triumph strains) increased rap- . Tepldly and BOW occupy almest half 0f idly after 1944, and by 1964 made up more than acreage The aereaiges 0f varieties and half of the Texas crop. Improved varieties (such age of the State total, by research testi, as Tenmarq, Comanche, Westar, Concho) result- are given in Table 7. Tascosa now i, TABLE 7. ACREAGES AND PERCENT OF TOTAL FOR WHEAT VARIETIES GROWN IN TEXAS IN; Research testing area I in___ HI ___Il__ ___l__ Extension district 1, 2 3, 6, 7 4, 5 8, 9, 11 10, 12 Total Variety Atlas 66 0 0 700 7,937 50 8,687 Bison 13,620 0 0 0 0 13,620 Caddo 138,411 152,257 35,184 123,186 1,375 450,413 Comanche 14,265 15,742 4,729 1,725 0 36,461 Concho 275,615 21,320 1,702 1,100 0 299,737 Crockett 36,073 238,170 10,430 10,100 100 294,873 Kaw 46,761 61,874 5,810 1,070 15 115,530 Knox and K. 62 0 0 287,628 9,930 0 297,558 Milam 0 2,250 0 9,549 118,254 130,053 Penjamo 62_ 0 0 0 0 17,880 17,880 Quanah i 0 . 21,592 0 28,340 600 50,532 Riley and R. 67 0 0 2,717 300 0 3,017 Scout 227,750 6,325 0 0 0 234,075 Scout 66 42,260 1,700 0 0 0 _ 43,960 Sturdy 154,722 28,620 12,985 2,410 2,310 201,047 Tascosa 832,956 76,213 3,400 1,672 0 914,246 Triumph 84,252 125,510 1,575 0 0 209,337 Triumph, Improved 482,520 525,756 32,000 6,854 0 1,047,130 Triumph, 64 7,880 15,400 270 0 0 23,550 Triumph, Super 23,140 5,610 270 0 0 29,020 Turkey 440 50 0 0 0 490 Warrior 4,502 1,750 0 0 0 6,252 Westar 8,290 500 1,100 0 9,890 Wichita 220,131 19,175 0 1,875 0 241,181 Others 5,583 9,230 18,591 304 4,700 38,408 ‘Based on private estimates made by county agents. 10 li-million, Caddo 450,000, Crockett 295,000 1m 130,000 acres. apedigrees, dates and states releasing the " ortant commercial varieties are given 8. Table 9 gives the market classes and Tvracteristics of the varieties as observed pxas conditions. A number of varieties developed in adjoining states have been tested and foundation seed released to Texas growers. As only a minor part of the plant breeding Work is devoted to soft Wheats, Indiana varieties of soft red winter wheat have been used extensively in Texas. Knox was released in 1954, and, later, foundation seed of Knox 62, Riley and Riley 67 were made available to Texas growers. .N'IYA)1(2iIgTY, PEDIGREE, YEAR AND STATE ORIGINATING COMMERCIAL WHEAT VARIETIES a North Carolina Developed or released by Year Pedigree Oklahoma 1967 Triumph x Triticum sp.-Agropyron elongation Indiana 1968 1 North Carolina 1948 Frondoso x (Redhart 3-Noll 28) New Mexico 1958 Red Chief x Cheyenne Indiana 1966 Knox 625 x Trumbull-Hope-Hussar-Fulhio-Purkof x Kenya Farmer Kansas 1956 Chiefkan x Oro-Tenmarq North Carolina 1967 Norin 10-Brevor x Anderson x Coker 55-9 Texas 1964 Wichita x Marquillo-Oro Texas 1969 [Sinvalocho-Wichita x Hope-Cheyenne) x Wichita’ C.I.12703] x Seu Seun 27 Kan-Okla-Texas 1942 Oro X Tenmarq Oklahoma 1954 Blackhull x Hard Federation TQXaS 1956 (Sinvalocho x WichitaFr) x Hope-Cheyenne) x Wichita Nebraska 1963 Ponca x (Mediterranean-Hope) x Pawnee Washlngtml 1961 [Norin 10 x Brevor-14 x (Orfed x Hybrid 50)-3] x Burt Nebraska 1967 Cheyenne x (Cheyenne-Kenya-Mentana) KaTl-Qkla 1969 (Early Blackhull x Tenmarq) x (Oro x Mediterranean-Hope) Kaasas 1965 Reselections from Kaw Indlana-Texas 1953 Trumbull-Fultz Sel x Minhardi-Wabash-Purplestraw-Chinese-Michigan Amber Indlana 1962 Knox5 x (Purdue 478A7-26-2 x Purdue 4126A9-16-1-1-3) F1 Nebraska 1953 Turkey-Cheyenne x Hope-Cheyenne M13506" 1965 [Kawvale x White Federation-Mo.Early Premium) x Mediterranean- Clarkan]Irradiated Texas 1966 Bowie x Lee ' 1111113119 1959 Sister strain of Knox (see Knox) Kansas 1966 Mediterranean-Hope x Pawnee) x (Oro-W38 x Comanche F1) Kansas 1967 Complex cross involving Quivera,Kanred,Hard Fed.,Prelude,Marquillo, _ Tenmarq 1119x166 1962 (Frontana x Kenya 58-Newthatch) x Norin 10-Brev0r Kamokla 1951 Kawvale-Tenmarq x Kawvale-Marquillo T611915 1951 (Comanche x Honor-Forward) x (Mediterranean-Hope x Comanche) 1111119119 1965 Knox-(Kawvale-W38-Fultz Sel-Hungar.-Wabash-Fairfield x Trumbull“- , Hope-Hussar) x Monon Sib. 111d1a11a 196E Riley" x (Knox type’ -Transfer x Purdue 501) Texas 194*’ Mediterranean-Hope x Gasta Nebraska 1969 Nebred-Hope-Turkey x Cheyenne-Ponca Nebraska 1967 Reselection from Scout Kansas . 1967 Reselection from Ottawa M15966“ 1966 (Thorne x Clarkan) Irradiated Texas 1966 [Sinvalocho-Wichita x Hope-Cheyenne x Wichita C.I.12703] x Seu Seun 27 TeXas 1959 (Kanred-Hard Federation-Tenmarq x Mediterranean-Hope) x Cimarron Nebraska 1968 Warrior x Selkirk-Cheyenne” NBbPaSka 1953 Sister strain of Trapper J09 Daane 1949 (Blackhull-Kanred) x (Blackhull-Kanred x Florence) J06 Daane 1944 (Daane Beardless x Blackhull) x (Kanred-Blackhull) 64 Ok1ah0ma 1969 (Daane Beardless-Blackhull x (Kanred-Blackhull x Florence) x Kanred- ‘ Black. x Triumph fumph J06 Daane 1957 [Daane Beardless-Blackhull x Kanred-Blackhull x Florence)] x (Kanred- f Black. x Triumph Introduced 1873 Introduction from Russia Nebraska 1960 Pawnee x Cheyenne Texas 1944 Kanred x Hard Federation Sel.25007) x Tenmarq Kan-Texasi 1944 Early Blackhull x Tenmarq Indiana 1955 Sister strain of Knox (Frondoso x Redheart 3-Noll 28) x Hardired (x Wabash 5x Fultz Sel. x Hungarian 2x W38 3x Wabash 4x Fairfield 6x Redcoat sib. x Wisc. C.I.12633 7x rumbull 2x Hope x Hussar 3x Fulhio x Purkof“ ‘(jointly with Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. ejointly with Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. 11 TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME WHEAT VARIETIES GROWN UNDER CONDITIONS Mar- Hardi- Variety ket Growth ness Matu- Plant Straw Test Chaff class habit‘ rating’ ritya height strength weight Awns color Agent HRW IW 6 MS tall good F’ awned white Arthur SRW W 2 E short good VG awnless white Atlas 66 SRW IW 7 MS tall good G awnless: white Aztec HRW W 2 ML tall good VG awned- '3: brown Benhur SRW W 3 E medium good G awnless white Bison HRW W 1 MS tall fair VG awned white‘ Blueboy SRW W 4 ME short good F awnless white Caddo HRW W 4 ME tall good E awned white Caprock HRW W 4 E short good F awned white‘ Comanche HRW W 3 MS medium fair F awned white Concho HRW W 3 MS tall fair F awned brown Crockett HRW W 3 ME tall fair VG awned whites Gage HRW W 2 ML tall fair F awned white Gaines SW W 2 L short 200d P awned white Guide HRW W 2 ME medium fair F awned white Kaw HRW W 3 ME tall poor VG awned white Kaw 61 HRW W 3 ME tall poor VG awned white Knox SRW W 2 E medium fair G awnless white Knox 62 SRW W 2 E medium fair G awnless white Lancer HRW W 1 MS medium fair F awned white Lewis SRW W 2 ML tall good F awnless white Milam HRS IW 8 MS medium good G awned white Monon SRW W 3 ME medium fair F awnless white Ottawa HRW W 2 L tall good G awned brown Parker HRW W 2 ME medium fair G awned white Penjamo 62 HRS S 10 MS short good F awned white Ponca HRW W 4 ML tall good F awned white Quanah HRW W 6 ML tall good F awned white Riley SRW W 3 ME medium good G awnless white Riley 67 SRW W 3 ME medium good G awnless white Seabreeze HRS S 10 E tall fair F awnless white Scout HRW W 2 MS medium fair F awned white Scout 66 HRW W 2 MS medium fair F a.wned white Shawnee HRW W 2 L tall good F awned brown Stadler SRW W 3 MS tall good G awnless white Sturdy HRW W 4 E short good F awned white‘ Tascosa HRW W 4 MS medium good E awned brown Trader HRW W 1 ML medium good F awned white Trapper HRW W 1 ML medium good F awned white Triumph HRW W 3 E medium fair G awned white Improved HRW W 3 medium fair G awned white Triumph Triumph 64 HRW W 3 E medium fair G awned white Super HRW W 3 E medium Triumph poor G awned white Turkey HRW W 1 L medium poor G awned white Warrior HRW W 1 L medium good F awned white Westar HRW W 3 ML tall fair G awned white Wichita HRW W 3 ME tall fair G awned white‘ Vermillion SRW W 3 E medium fair G awnless white Wakeland SRW W 5 E tall fair G awnless white ‘S I Spring, IW I intermediate winter, W I Winter. “Rated 1 to 10 with 1 most hardy. “E I early, ME I Moderately early, MS I Midseason, ML I Moderately late, L I Late. ‘F I Fair, G I Good, VG I Very good, E I Excellent, P I Poor. 5Chaff is white with black stripes under some conditions. form (3). form (6). 12 PERFORMANCE TRIALS Winter Wheat Performance trials are conducted with Wheat and other small grains on a statewide basis; and detailed data on yield, test Weight, reaction to diseases and information on agronomic charac- teristics are reported annually in mimeographed These trials are summarized at inter- vals of 5 to 10 years and published in bulletin Copies of these are available through the Texas Agricultural Experiment Stat Texas Extension Service. ' Most performance trials are cond nursery size plots (4 x 12 feet) in ra , block trials of four replications. Since p ties are not grown in all seasons at all Q in order to compare varieties directly, able average data are computed as sug Patterson (19). Comparable average 5 based on a set of check varieties gro AT BUSHLAND, 1958-68‘ 10. COMPARABLE YIELD AND AGRONOMIC DATA OF IRRIGATED WINTER WHEAT VARIETIES Comparable data2 Grain Test Number yield, weight, Date Plant Leaf Percent , years bushel pounds first height, rust survival, tested per acre per bushel head inches 1960 1963 _ e’ a 8 51.5 58.4 5-11 37.4 40 83 flilackhull’ 8 46.6 59.6 5-3 37.9 40 83 8 43.0 57.2 5-15 38.6 60 83 of checks 8 47.1 58.4 5-10 38.0 83 4 47.6 60.0 5-14 39.5 50 ' 7 53.0 59.2 5-10 38.0 50 87 8 54.5 61.0 5-6 36.6 58 4 63.3 59.3 5-5 32.8 Tr 4 52.5 59.7 5-10 38.3 30 80 6 47.5 60.1 5-8 38.0 10 ' 80 3 46.1 57.8 5-10 35.5 10 82 2 47.8 51.8 5-17 29.7 4 54.8 59.5 5-8 36.5 5 51.7 61.1 5-6 36.4 2 85 3 48.0 58.9 5-9 37.1 Tr 90 3 58.1 60.4 5-9 35.7 5 58.4 59.9 5-7 37.7 73 3 58.0 60.3 5-7 35.9 3 63.4 59.4 5-8 36.3 4 56.1 58.2 5-6 31.7 75 A, 8 59.8 61.5 5-9 36.1 40 67 7 50.3 59.9 5-6 37.0 40 82 __¢ Improved 7 54.3 60.2 5-4 36.1 40 78 I '64 4 49.5 60.3 5-4 36.7 87 2 55.2 58.6 5-13 36.9 95 6 40.2 59.7 5-5 38.0 40 80 ed by hail in 1961, 1963 and 1965. comparable yields based on data for years grown. arieties used to calculate comparable yields. f: From these a correction factor is com- Varieties grown for less than the full are then adjusted by means of these cor- factors. Comparable yields and agron- ata are given in tables which follow. es grown for only a few years may be d less accurately than those grown for periods, and the reader may wish to refer ’r publications for actual yields. SEARCH AREA I: This area is made up gHigh Plains, Extension Districts 1 and 2, ' ws more than half the state acreage, t2. Approximately half of the acreage is ___‘l Average annual rainfall for this area i» 18 inches, the majority being received the summer months. Winters are severe, I y winter wheats of moderate to high cold should be fall sown. In favorable "seasons, a small acreage of wheat may be sown. Figure 12 shows wheat harvest large scale production in this area. I parable grain yields and agronomic data varieties grown in irrigated trials at . Southwestern“ Great Plains Research l at Bushland and several off-station farm s are given in Tables 10 and 11, and data ilar dryland tests are given in Table 12. king of varieties varies with location and m. Under irrigation Shawnee, Caprock, 3 Parker, Scout, Sturdy, Caddo, Improved A Triumph, Guide and Warrior have produced ex- cellent yields. Concho, Kaw, Wichita and Scout are tall varieties which have performed well but may lodge under some conditions. Hail is an important hazard of production in this area, and the variety Tascosa has shown outstanding abil- ity to resist hail, Figure 13. Sturdy and Tas- cosa in increase fields at Bushland are shown in Figure 14. Dryland tests at Bushland and Wellington have yielded in the 15 to 25-bushel range, with no great differences in yield for the leading Figure 12. Combine harvesting new short-statured Sturdy wheat, Bushland, 1968. 13 has: ‘:I.$.-:-. -:- ; t: Figure 14. Sturd (left) and Tascosa (right) wheat varieties growing under irrigation, Bushland, strains. Tall varieties are satisfactory fora land production. Guide, Ponca, Scout and l produced the highest yields at Bushland and? cer and Bison, Concho and Crockett the h'i yields at Wellington. Tascosa, Kaw, C‘ Crockett and Bison have been outstanding it weight in both dryland and irrigated tests area. a Strong gluten Wheats of high test are needed for growing under irrigation b the protein content may be low if there adequate nitrogen. Tascosa, Caprock, Caddo and Warrior are strong gluten . suitable for these conditions. Kaw, Biso Scout are also strong gluten wheats but a; ‘V s. Figure 13. Tascosa wheat (left) was damaged much less in a h.ail storm than Wichita (right), Bushland, 1965. weaker straw and may lodge. TABLE 11. COMPARABLE GRAIN YIELDS AND AGRONOMIC DATA FOR IRRIGATED WINTER WHEAB RIETIES GROWN AT STRATFORD, ETTER, HARTLEY, PERRYTON AND PLAINVIEW, 1958-68 Etter # Stratford Etter Perryton Plainview Test Num- Grain Num- Grain Num- Grain Num- Grain weight, ber yield, ber yield, Hartley ber yield, yield, pounds years bushels years bushels 1 year years bushels years bushels per Variety grown per acre grown per acre bushels grown per acre grown per acre bushel Comanche 8 37.4 3 51.8 4 44.8 3 62.1 59.1 Early Blackhull 8 39.6 3 51.5 4 46.3 2 50.6 60.7 Kharkof 8 35.9 3 43.5 4 34.4 2 39.3 57.5 Average 8 37.6 3 48.9 59.1 Aztec 3 37.2 Bison 7 41.8 2 55.8 2 42.5 59.5 60.5 Caddo 7 40.7 3 52.4 33.4 4 47.7 3 53.7 62.0 Caprock 1 38.3 3 52.0 2 50.4 59.0 Concho 3 44.5 2 65.1 44.6 1 69.1 1 59.1 57.9 Crockett 6 36.0 Gage 3 40.0 1 56.4 Gaines 2 31.5 1 53.7 1 27.9 1 53.0 53.6 Kaw 5 40.2 1 57.0 Ottawa 3 38.8 Parker 36.1 1 51.7 1 52.3 Scout 3 49.3 3 60.2 39.4 4 59.8 3 62.5 60.7 Scout 66 g Sturdy 4 40.7 3 52.9 38.4 4 54.6 3 52.2 59.1 Tascosa 8 44.7 3 57.1 35.9 4 50.9 3 57 2 63.2 Triumph 4 41.5 Triumph, Improved 6 43.8 3 57.2 28.1 4 45.8 3 49.1 60.7 Triumph ’64 1 31.9 2 54.4 2 43.4 2 51.4 61.1 Warrior 4 45.9 1 56.9 1 28.6 59.1 Wichita 3 38.1 l4 Grain yield, bushels per acre ‘i2. COMPARABLE GRAIN YIELDS AND AGRONOMIC DATA FOR NONIRRIGATED, WINTER WHEAT p! S GROWN AT BUSHLAND AND WELLINGTON, 1959-68 Bushland Wellington Bushland Number Com- Number Com- Test Date Plant years parable years parable weight, first height, tested yield‘ tested yield‘ pounds‘ head‘ inches‘ A 7 18.5 9 20.6 58.3 5-11 23.1 _f khull’ 7 20.0 9 18.1 59.0 5-4 25.1 ‘ 7 18.5 9 20.0 57.9 5-16 24.0 A of checks 7 19.0 9 19.6 58.4 5-10 24.1 f 1 10.1 54.2 5-2 23.4 3 19.0 3 20.6 60.4 5-13 24.8 6 19.6 8 23.2 58.6 5-10 24.4 7 20.5 9 19.7 60.0 5-7 24.6 2 19.7 2 17.1 60.3 . 3 20.7 6 22.4 58.2 5-9 23.0 6 18.8 6 22.3 58.5 5-8 24.1 3 19.2 3 20.4 55.9 5-10 24.9 2 14.8 2 19.7 57.3 5-15 20.1 3 22.0 57.0 5-6 23.1 4 20.8 7 20.4 60.7 5-7 24.0 1 18.9 2 23.4 59.8 21.8 4 19.4 4 21.5 57.2 5-10 23.3 3 19.9 57.7 22.8 3 21.4 1 21.9 56.9 5-11 23.9 4 21.0 4 20.6 56.8 5-7 24.2 2 20.0 57.7 5-6 24.4 2 18.2 58.0 3 18.2 5 17.3 55.8 5-6 22.1 7 20.9 9 21.0 59.8 5-8 23.1 < 6 18.5 5 19.9 58.1 5-5 25.0 IImproved 6 19.2 8 20.5 57.7 5-4 23.7 ‘64 3 17.7 2 18.9 57.5 5-3 24.6 2 18.1 4 21.1 57.7 5-11 23.1 4 19.0 3 18.8 57.8 5-6 24.6 4 data based on years grown. , ' 'eties used to calculate comparable data. ‘f: ARCH AREA II: The Rolling Plains, the ' Plateau and the Trans-Pecos land-use ' included in this research area, Exten- ricts 3, 6, 7. This area grows about 33 of the state Wheat acreage. In general, its in this area are similar, although a wide range of soils, elevation, rainfall peratures. In the Trans-Pecos, only are seeded for Winter pasture or for éand grain production under irrigation. Ing Plains has very limited facilities for f: wheat. Average rainfall ranges from ‘inches, with the majority coming in the jonths and a second lesser peak in Sep- nd October. Winter temperatures are 'vere, but wheat usually remains well and winterkilling seldom occurs. Late : ezes, after elongation of the spike has re common and an important hazard of n. ormance trials were conducted at Iowa h limited irrigation until 1965, Table 4 at Chillicothe, Table 14, were the only Lucted throughout the period. The lead- * ies in comparable yield at Iowa Park Kaw, Concho, Ottawa, Improved Tri- fockett and Tascosa. At Chillicothe, the arietieswere Scout 66, Scout, Caprock, and Improved Triumph. Differences among these varieties are probably not signifi- cant; some were tested for only short periods. Kaw, Tascosa, Early Blackhull, Caddo and Crock- ett had the highest average test weight. Growers in this area have several good varie- ties available and may select one to fit their needs and conditions. For growing under irriga- tion, on subirrigated land, bottom land or in other conditions where lodging or accumulation of straw is a problem, Sturdy and Caprock are well adapted. If soils are low in water-holding capacity or inherent fertility or if the production level is low for other reasons, taller varieties such as Scout, Caddo, Crockett, Kaw or Improved Triumph probably should be chosen. Under some conditions, the very short varieties may not be sufficiently tall to combine satisfactorily. Leaf rust is an important hazard in this area. At present the best resistance is found in Agent, Sturdy, Caprock and Caddo. All other varieties are highly susceptible. RESEARCH AREA III: The Blackland Prairie, Grand Prairie, East and West Cross Timbers and Northeast Texas Timberlands are all included in this reasearch area, Extension Districts 4 and 5, where about 8 percent of the state wheat acre- age is grown. The elevation is 600 to 900 feet. The annual rainfall ranges from 30 to 40 inches. 15 Distribution of rainfall is poor, but the peak and II but are subject to greater fluct, months are April, May and October. Winter which can be very damaging to small grail temperatures are less severe than in Areas I Rapid growth is initiated during periods L 1193.6 éIOMPARABLE GRAIN YIELDS AND AGRONOMIC DATA FOR WINTER WHEAT GROWN A , 5 - 5‘ Number Grain yield, Test Date Plant years bushels weight, first ._ height, Variety grown per acre pounds head '_- 1,. 1960 Comanche’ 7 39.5 60.4 4-24 44 Crockettz 7 44.5 62.6 4-22 44 Early Blackhull’ 7 41.9 62.6 4-16 42 Kharkof“ 7 35.3 59.4 4-27 45 Tascosa’ 7 44.0 62.4 4-22 39 Average 7 41.0 61.5 Aztec 3 39.3 60.9 4-24 46 Bison 6 43.1 61.4 4-23 42 Caddo 5 41.9 62.4 4-17 41 Concho 5 45.4 61.6 4-23 42 Gage 3 45.6 61.4 4-24 Kaw 5 45.5 63.2 4-19 42 Ottawa 2 45.3 61.7 4-21 38 Ponca 5 40.5 60.6 4-24 42 Red Chief 5 36.2 61.9 4-25 45 Rodco 3 39.6 60.1 4-23 Sturdy 1 40.7 62.1 4-18 Tenmarq 3 39.0 60.1 4-26 Triumph 6 40.8 61.2 4-17 39 Triumph, Improved 5 44.9 60.8 4-15 40 Triumph, Super 2 43.4 59.5 4-16 Warrior 2 38.7 59.1 4-27 Westar 3 39.6 61.1 4-25 Wichita 4 41.5 61.5 4-19 43 ‘Comparable data calculated on basis of years grown. ’Check varieties used to calculate comparable data. TABLE 14. COMPARABLE GRAIN YIELDS AND AGRONOMIC DATA FOR WINTER WHEAT V‘ GROWN AT CHILLICOTHE, 1959-68‘ Number Grain yield, Test weight, Date Plant years bushels pounds first height, Variety grown per acre per bushel head inches Comanchei 10 20.9 57.9 5-2 27.4 Early Blackhull“ 10 21.0 59.7 4-26 30.2 Kharkof“ 10 18.6 58.3 5-8 28.4 Average 20.6 58.6 Agent 3 23.2 56.0 5-3 30.0 Aztec 5 20.5 60.1 5-6 28.4 Bison 9 21.4 58.4 5-2 27.1 Caddo 10 22.3 59.5 4-29 28.1 Caprock 3 25.5 57.7 4-23 21.9 Concho 5 20.9 58.4 5-2 26.8 Crockett 10 20.9 59.1 4-30 28.3 Gage 5 20.6 57.6 5-3 25.2 Gaines 4 18.7 55.9 5-13 21.8 Guide 5 22.7 58.1 4-24 23.3 Kaw 7 23.3 60.7 4-28 28.3 Kaw 61 4 22.0 60.4 4-29 28.1 Ottawa 4 19.0 57.8 5-3 27.4 Parker 2 24.3 58.9 4-27 23.5 Scout 8 25.6 57.7 4-29 26.6 Scout .66 4 26.9 58.2 4-28 27.2 Shawnee 3 21.3 59.2 5-2 26.0 Sturdy 6 24.6 57.8 4-23 20.9 Tascosa 10 22.5 59.8 5-1 25.3 Triumph 10 23.4 59.2 4-24 27.5 Triumph, Improved 10 24.0 59-0 4-23 26.4 Triumph ’64 6 24.3 59.5 4-23 25.8 Warrior 6 20.3 57.8 5-5 24.1 Wichita 4 19.5 58.9 4~27 28.4 ‘Calculated data based on years grown. zRated 1 to 5 with 1 lowest shattering. “Check varieties used to calculate comparable data. l6 ATDENTON, 1959-681 5. COMPARABLE GRAIN YIELDS AND AGRONOMIC DATA FOR WINTER WHEAT VARIETIES l Number Yield of grain, Test Date Leaf Plant years bushels weight, first rust, height, grown per acre pounds head percent inches 10 29.4 58.6 4-26 32 38.2 ckhull’ 10 31.5 61.4 4-17 40 38.4 J A 10 23.8 57.8 4-29 55 38.4 28.3 38.4 2 35.2 58.4 4-24 Tr 39.3 1 37.7 61.3 4-13 Tr 35.0 3 38.9 59.5 4-14 23 36.3 2 28.3 52.9 4-16 70 36.4 10 36.1 62.0 4-20 9 37.4 3 33.5 59.8 4-14 14 31.9 7 33.0 60.9 4-23 22 36.5 10 25.4 57.7 4-29 a 19 42.0 1 29.0 54.6 5-1 49 ' 30.0 8 34.8 59.2 4-24 6 35.3 4 31.7 58.8 4-15 50 34.0 7 30.2 59.5 4-16 19 37.9 7 32.8 59.4 4-16 21 37.9 7 33.8 62.1 4-20 16 37.4 2 24.9 54.4 4-18 50 36.4 4 28.2 58.5 4-16 17 35.3 6 29.3 59.1 4-25 24 36.8 2 36.9 61.8 4-19 12 35.2 3 31.5 59.1 4-25 7 36.4 8 30.9 59.7 4-23 7 38.2 3 35.1 58.9 4-13 25 38.2 2 39.9 59.4 4-15 Tr 37.8 8 32.2 59.1 4-24 39 37.4 4 32.6 58.8 4-22 44 38.7 3 23.6 59.3 4-26 48 ' 38.0 2 37.4 59.4 4-17 15 39.4 6 34.9 59.9 4-15 1 29.4 10 30.8 60.7 4-25 33 35.1 10 30.0 60.8 4-18 51 35.2 Improved 10 33.1 60.0 4-17 49 35.1 5 34.8 61.6 4-16 36 34.8 i ' 3 26.0 59.3 4-18 4 40.3 ‘ble data calculated from data on years grown. 1 f- 'eties used to calculate comparable data. Iwinter wheat varieties, all others hard red winter. ‘I - winter wheat. l which may be followed by temperature , near zero. However, wheat is damaged : sionally. l ormance trials were conducted at Den- for both soft and hard red winter arieties are given in Table 15. The ma- ‘f this acreage was seeded to soft red arieties, largely Knox and Knox 62, Table best soft wheat yields have been pro- y Arthur, Riley 67, Riley, Knox 62 and Knox 62 and Riley 67 are new strains lter disease resistance which should re- ox and Riley. A. the hard wheat varieties, the highest .1 ble yields have been produced by Caddo, , Caprock, Gage and Kaw. Parker and ve yielded Wellbut have been tested hort time. Sturdy and Caprock are less lodge, an important factor in production rea. Kaw, Caddo, Parker, Crockett and _ have produced the best test Weight. Of d wheats, Sturdy and Caprock mature 1 and have about the same» maturity as 9’ and Riley 67. Leaf rust is important in this area. Agent and Riley 67 were prac- tically free of leaf rust and Caddo, Sturdy, Cap- rock, Gage and Quanah had low infection read- ings. Limited yield trials, as part of forage testing, were conducted at Mt. Pleasant and Overton in East Texas. Data are given in Table 16. RESEARCH AREA IV: The Central Black- lands, Prairies and Central East Texas Timber- land land-use areas are included in this area, Extension Districts 8, 9 and 11. The soils and weather conditions of this area are similar to TABLE 16. YIELDS OF WHEAT TESTED AS PART ggfiOlgAGg TRIALS AT MT. PLEASANT AND OVER- , 1 55- 8 Variety 1955 1956 1957 1963 1964 1968 Frisco 8. Knox 7. Atlas 66 9. 31.2 16.5 Quanah 2. 16.3 34.7 17.1 Caddo 17 .1 Milam 8.9 28.1 Sturdy 26.5 OO-ilfii-l 17 those of Area III. However, winter tempera- tures are less severe, especially in East Texas, so varieties of less cold tolerance can be used for fall seeding. Only 4 percent of the state wheat acreage is sown here, and most in Districts 9 and 11 is grazed to maturity. Performance trials are grown at Temple and McGregor, Tables 17 and 18. Some data are available from Overton on the border of Areas III and IV. The tests have included soft and hard red Winter wheats, plus a few durums and spring-type varieties. For many years, a small acreage of durum wheat has been grown for feed ' purposes in the “Hill Country” of the lower Ed- wards Plateau. At both stations, the soft red winter wheat varieties have produced the best yields. How- ever, there is no local market for soft wheats. Riley and Knox strains, as well as Benhur, have produced good yields. The largest commercial acreages in this area are seeded to Caddo, Quanah and Crockett. Among hard wheat varieties in the tests, the best comparable yields at McGregor have been produced by Gage, Caddo, Sturdy, Kaw and Milam. Milam is less cold tolerant than the winter wheats but is a good variety for RESEARCH AREA V: The Rio Gran and southern portions of the Central =., Prairies and Coastal Bend land-use up this research area, Extension Distric i 12. Less than 3 percent of the wheat a I sown here, and more than half of that i9 to maturity. The area is of low eleva high humidity, and rainfall ranges fr along the coast to low in ».the interior. p poorly distributed. Small areas along i, Grande and other rivers are irrigated. I Performance trials of both win spring-type wheat varieties were cond‘ College Station and Beeville, Tables 19 L Leaf diseases are very important in t and frequently prevent grain production}. is the principal commercial variety alt recent years, some Mexican varieties introduced. i Among varieties grown for long Milam has produced the best yields and is to winter grazing. True winter varieties. main wheat growing areas are not well’ here. The Mexican varieties Nadadorf jamo 62 and Lerma Rojo produced g0' during the short time they were tested. ‘ varieties also have produced good yield spring-type varieties are poor winter f0 '0 A ducers because they tiller sparsely and recover well after grazing by livestock. ‘_ winter pasture. At Temple, the best yields among hard wheats were produced by Sturdy, Caprock, Caddo and Gage. Durum wheats have produced yields equal to the best hard and soft winter varieties at these locations. TABLE 17. COMPARABLE GRAIN YIELDS AND AGRONOMIC DATA FOR WHEAT VARIETIES AT McGREGOR. 1959-68‘ ; Grain Esti- g Number yield, Test Date of Plant mate of Market years bushel weight, first height, forage " Variety class grown per acre pounds head inches value Denton2 SRW 8 25.3 58.3 4-25 37.4 81 Early Blackhulli HRW 8 26.5 60.5 4-17 35.6 80 Quanahz HRW 8 27.8 59.2 4-21 35.5 94 Average 8 26.6 59.3 4-21 36.2 Agent HRW 1 29.4 58.0 Atlas 66 SRW 2 25.8 58.9 4-15 35.9 97 Austin SRW 6 32.3 57.6 4-19 36.7 100“ Benhur SRW 1 22.9 60.0 4-11 29.8 Blueboy SRW 1 28.8 59.0 4-10 30.8 Caddo HRW 8 32.6 61.9 4-19 35.1 81 Caprock HRW 2 27.8 60.3 Comanche HRW 4 26.7 57.6 4-21 36.1 83 Crockett HRW 8 28.4 60.9 4-21 35.2 79 Gage HRW 3 34.4 60.3 4-20 35.3 85 Kaw , HRW 4 30.9 61.8 4-19 34.4 80 1 Knox SRW . 5 33.9 59.8 4-11 37.4 96 . * Knox ’62 SRW 4 31.8 60.7 4-11 36.6 99 Lakota Durum 5 30.8 57.1 4-13 37.9 102 Langdon Durum 3 29.9 59.4 4-14 40.2 98 Milam HRS 8 30.9 59.8 4-11 35.4 104 Monon SRW 2 31.0 58.0 4-11 35.3 93 Ottawa HRW 2 30.0 59.2 4-22 34.5 79 Riley SRW 1 22.2 61.7 4-9 Riley 67 SRW 1 21.2 61.0 4-8 _ Stewart Durum 6 29.1 61.4 4-17 40.3 93 - A Sturdy HRW 4 31.2 60.1 4-13 30.8 88 Tascosa HRW 1 15.4 62.1 4-20 34.4 78 . Wells Durum 3 33.2 59.1 4-17 36.6 103 ‘Comparable data based on years grown. “Check varieties used to calculate comparable data. “Forage standard. 18 COMPARABLE GRAIN YIELDS AND AGRONOMIC DATA FOR WINTER WHEAT VARIETIES Q TEMPLE, 1959-68 Visual Number Grain yield, Test Date of Plant forage years bushels weight, first height, estimate, grown per acre pounds head inches percent > 10 23.2 56.4 4-24 40.0 92 ‘ khull’ 10 25.0 61.8 4-16 36.2 85 '_V > 10 24.3 58.3 4-20 36.6 101 58. 4-20 37.6 1 44.2 3 27.3 56.9 4-12 33.9 107 7 24.6 56.5 4-19 36.4 100"‘ 2 31.0 60.1 4-7 30.4 2 22.2 54.6 4-10 31.9 101 10 27.3 60.7 4-17 34.8 90 3 27.5 58.4 4-10 26.8 5 21.3 55.6 4-22 34.8 85 7 24.8 60.4 4-18 36.6 9O 4 25.1 58.9 4-15 33.3 4 24.1 61.4 4-19 33.5 88 5 25.8 59.9 4-12 37.5 95 5 28.8 61.1 4-10 35.8 96 1O 24.9 59.7 4-12 34.2 109 2 21.1 60.1 4-13 34.9 ‘-’ 3 19.7 58.8 4-22 32.8 88 1 23.5 58.6 4-8 30.9 2 33.7 57.6 4-8 34.9 93 6 29.2 59.0 4-10 26.5 87 comparable data based on years grown. eties used to calculate comparable data. ndard for comparison. heat - spring wheat varieties are grown to ‘extent in two areas: (1) in Northwest ' hen spring weather conditions are fav- some hazard reduces the value and Jfor the fall-sown crop; and (2) in ex- , inter wheat varieties; all others are hard red winter class. treme South Texas, where winters are suffi- ciently mild that spring types can be fall sown without great danger of winter killing. Spring seeding of Wheat has been tested in- termittently over a period of 40 years at Denton, Chillicothe and Bushland. Results have never COMPARABLE AGRONOMIC AND YIELD DATA FOR WHEAT VARIETIES GROWN AT COLLEGE f 1958-68‘ Grain Test Number yield, weight, Date of Plant Leaf Market years bushels pounds first height, rust, class grown per acre per bushel head inches percent HRS 10 27.7 61.6 4-1 35.7 20 HRS 10 18.5 59.9 3-15 37.2 40 10 23.1 60.8 36.5 30 HRW 1 27.3 60.8 3-29 36.2 Tr SRW 5 23.9 58.9 4-1 39.2 10 SRW 7 24.5 57.4 4-6 39.9 25 SRW 1 17.9 4-3 74 HRS 5 23.8 60.2 4-3 35.9 15 HRW 3 22.6 60.3 4-15 40.0 5 HRS 3 9.1 58.6 3-5 33.5 Tr . HRW 2 16.8 41.8 4-18 30 ’ HRS 3 13.5 58.3 3-13 41.5 35 khull HRW 2 17.4 58.8 4-13 53 " HRS 2 20.1 56.7 3-30 38.0 34 i Durum 3 29.1 57.4 4-1 40.5 Tr Durum 1 28.4 59.8 4-2 43.5 Tr HRS ‘i. i 5 23.5 60.4 4-1 38.4 20 HRS ‘ 2 26.7 58.2 4-2 31.7 Tr HRW 10 22.7 59.8 4-9 39.1 15 HRW 1 19.7 54.8 4-8 Tr SRW 3 20.0 59.6 3-28 44.0 20 Durum 3 33.2 59.4 4-1 40.0 9 comparable average based on years grown. ties used to compute comparable data. 19 TABLE 20. COMPARABLE GRAIN YIELDS AND AGRONOMIC DATA FOR WHEAT VARIETIES GRO BEEVILLE, 1959-68‘ Grain Test Number yield, weight, Plant Leaf Market years bushel pounds height, rust, Variety class grown per acre per bushel inches percent Milam” HRS 10 14.3 56.2 33.9 12 Seabreeze’ HRS 10 13.1 56.0 32.2 27 Average 10 13.7 56.1 p} Atlas 66 SRW 5 15.4 54.5 34.1 ' 17 Austin SRW 7 12.7 52.8 33.9 26 Blueboy SRW 1 6.5 26.6 50 Bowie HRS 4 13.5 55.9 34.4 8 Caddo HRW 1 13.3 58.1 28.1 13 Chris HRS 2 16.3 59.9 30.6 5 Comanche HRW 1 9.6 Crim HRS 3 9.7 57.9 33.6 47 Justin HRS 1 7.3 52.0 39.6 20 Lakota Durum 3 12.8 52.4 36.7 22 Lee HRS 5 14.1 54.2 33.5 35 Lerma Rojo HRS 1 24.5 Nadadores HRS 3 20.7 57.1 31.9 10 Penjamo 62 HRS 1 28.5 Polk HRS 1 10.0 Quanah HRW 10 12.1 56.4 34.4 16 Red River 68 HRS 1 10.2 Rio Bravo HRS 1 33.8 Sturdy HRW 1 8.6 53.1 Tr Supremo HRW 2 16.6 55.9 39.9 19 Wells Durum 2 13.6 53 9 36.7 18 ‘Calculated data based on years grown. ’Check varieties used to calculate comparable data. been sufficiently favorable to establish the crop. Normally, the rainfall at seeding time is low and poorly distributed (January 0.44, February 0.48 and March 0.55 at Bushland). The crop can be i better managed under irrigation, but yields have not been equal to that of fall-sown wheat. De- tailed data for spring seeded Wheat at three loca- tions are given in Progress Report 2545 (4). A brief summary of results is given in Table 20. Only in very favorable spring seasons have yields of spring Wheat varieties approached those of fall sown Wheat, and they do not provide winter pasture for livestock. Spring-type varieties have been tested from fall seeding in South Texas as early as 1919 at TABLE 21. DATA ON AVERAGE YIELDS OF SPRING-SOWN WHEAT VARIETIES GROWN AT THR AS LOCATIONS AND YIELDS OF WINTER WHEAT IN THE SAME SEASONS '_ the former U.S. San Antonio Field v Wheat production in this area has been because of damage by the cereal rusts. the spring varieties Seabreeze, Lee and. varieties are given in Table 20 for Beevi averaged 14.1 bushels for a 5-year peri’ pared to 14.3 for Milam for a 10-year pet Performance data for fall-sown wheats at three locations in South -} given in Progress Report 2581 (11), and; data on these wheats are given in Prog port 2582 (25). A brief summary of A sults is given in Tables 21 and 22. I‘ several Mexican varieties seemed prom’ tests, but they require additional testin; Bushland Chillicothe Denton Dryland Irrigated 5 years 4 years , 3 years 4 years 5 years Variety 1939-42 1960 1968 1940-46 1968 1937-40 1940-45 Spring-type Thatcher 8.7 13.6 24.3 2.3 19.4 16.6 Marquis 4.9 18.9 9.8 8.5 Mindum- 27.8 26.1 durum 11.2 Chris 17.7 37.7 Ciano 20.0 39.0 Red River 68 19.6 48.1 Winter-type Comanche 16.5 17.6 22.4 36.5 60.6 32.9 20.7 Tenmarq 14.0 21.1 36.9 27 7 17.4 Blackhull 15.2 18.4 35.4 21.9 23.9 Tascosa 21.7 65.9 20 '- ommendations can be made. Spring arieties from the Northern United States performed as well as the Mexican varie- ven as well as Milam. j, spring-type varieties may be separated . q classes —those that are daylength-neu- _ f those that require increasing length of Tcause normal heading. The daylength- Narieties may head in midwinter if con- fbecome favorable. If frosts or freezes ' ,; r this, they may be damaged. The day- "type should be seeded 15 to 30 days later long-day varieties if they are to avoid .~ from late freezes. Nearly all Mexican I are of the day-neutral type. Some of . spring varieties are of this type, but rim and Justin are long-day varieties, . Growers should be informed as to the ristics of each variety and handle their i-on this basis. True-winter type varie- m the north and northwestern part of the . not perform well in southern Texas and f 0t be grown. QUALITY .' quality of a wheat variety, with respect ‘rformance and usefulness in the manu- ;_of flour, is important to the grower and ‘t breeder as well as to the milling indus- ality characteristics are the result of the on between inherited genetic characters p environmental conditions under which 1 is grown. Varieties that inherit un- _ characteristics produce poor quality , der most conditions. Varieties that in- irable quality characteristics will pro- n quality wheat under favorable condi- ,.- may not if grown under unfavorable is. The environmental conditions that quality are not well understood. High 'ure during the fruiting period, low . of available nitrogen during filling of _ , available moisture during filling and A tors influence quality in various ways. PERFORMANCE OF SPRING-WHEAT VA- _ IN SOUTH TEXAS IN 1968‘ Bushels per acre Beeville Robstown Pearsall’ I spring ’ 30.5 17.1 - .j<> 30.1’ 7.8 45.1 68 34.1’ 9.7 51.6 er 68 15.8’ 5.9 1 spring - 15.6 8.7 20.5 13.9 16.4 12.1 21.8 27.4 15.1 19.2 15.0 31.3 __~ Progress Report 2582. by spring freeze. Under most seasonal conditions, the best quality wheat for commercial bakery flour pro- duction is produced in the drier parts of the state. Irrigation tends to produce grain with lower protein and weaker mixing properties. Wheat produced in the more humid, high rainfall areas of North Central and Central Texas tends to have lower protein and Weaker gluten. Often it is too low in quality to be used in bakery flour, except when blended with strong gluten wheats. Such grain may be lower in price or in less de- mand than high quality grain. The majority of bread is baked in large, mechanized, commercial bakeries, and, because mechanical device-s are involved in the process, nonuniformity of the flour or other ingredients may cause serious economic loss to the baker. To insure uniformity, the miller selects wheat with various quality characteristics and blends them together to meet the baker’s flour specifi- cations. To meet these requirements, large quan- tities of strong-gluten, high-quality varieties are required by the miller. The milling trade, ter- minal elevators and others who buy wheat for domestic or foreign markets are well informed on the varieties and quality of wheat grown in each area. To obtain the high quality wheat desired, they will buy from an area which grows good varieties and buy from other areas only for blending purposes. Areas growing good quality varieties attract and develop a market for good quality wheat. Unfortunately, there is usually no way for an individual grower to profit directly from growing good quality varieties because it is impossible to separate Wheat in local markets. The choice of a variety to grow should be based on performance and quality. Fortunately, growers in Texas have available high yielding, high test weight, well-adapted varieties with ex- cellent quality. As part of the wheat improve- ment program of the Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station, all new varieties considered for release are tested thoroughly for quality in the Cereal Quality Laboratory at College Station. More advanced strains, entered in Regional trials, are tested at the U.S. Department of Agriculture Regional Quality Laboratory at Manhattan, Kan- sas. Later, when larger quantities are available, 25-bushel seed lots are tested by the Hard Winter Wheat Quality Council in cooperation with com- mercial laboratories. Figure 15 shows bread and farinograph curves of a strong gluten and a weak gluten wheat variety. Although varieties differ greatly from sea- son to season and are influenced by the environ- mental conditions under which they are grown, their relative quality usually is much the same. A general classification based on many quality tests follows: Group 1: High quality hard red winter wheat varie- ties suitable for production of bakery flour under most conditions: Tascosa, Sturdy, Caprock, Caddo, Quanah, Bison, Kaw, Warrior, Comanche, Turkey, Shawnee, Guide. Group 2: Good quality varieties suitable for bakery flour if grown on dryland under favorable conditions but 21 DISEASES Diseases are important hazards to i production in Texas. The mild, humid weather conditions of the eastern half state provide favorable conditions for es ment and increase of pathogens causing e diseases, especially the rusts, septoria lea i and mildew. The early-spring establish r local or area-wide epidemics may provi borne spores which can be carried to all l; the state. When such conditions develop? large area, the diseases may become maj tors in wheat production. Major epide rusts and septoria occurred in 1935, 19; and 1958. The 1949 epidemic, for caused an estimated loss of 24 million z Losses to the crop include not only grain l, grain quality and increased cost of ha A the crop. Diseases of wheat are desc greater detail in Texas Agricultural Exp Station Bulletin 921 (1). The principal l eases of wheat are shown in Figure 16. ‘a Leaf Rust Leaf rust of wheat, caused by the Puccinia recondita Rob. ex Desm. F. sp Figure 15. Bread and farinograph curve showing gluten strength of Comanche, a high quality variety, and of Red _ _ _ Chief, a weak gluten wheat. Er1ks., 1s probably the most damaging diseases in Texas. Although usually tacular, as is stem rust, it is present if: producing blending flours if grown under unfavorable conditions. Not equal in quality to Group 1: Crockett, year and throughout the winter in a C0118, Concho, Westar, Ponca, Ottawa, Gage, Lancer, Parker. portion of the Stato Commonly called “ i‘ l _ Group 3: Mellow gluten wheats suitable for blend- by growers and often not considered i mgdorffor fimfiiyhflourt Prmiluctlfn ‘i; If” lflakery £10“; it reduces the functional leaf area, dame pro uc 10H a 1g pro em eve s: riump , mprove - - .. Triumph, Triumph 64, Wichita, Ottawa, Gage, Agent, age both 1n the fall and Sprmg and later Mflam, the number and size of seed. flourcrpghlguéclzitiosoiithdleadTvgcneis:rcdgdigihsnsilitlféhhexfolgnhzicmégy Leaf rust Occurs on either Side of t f‘ Riley, Riley 67, Monon, Arthur, Vermillion, ,At1as so: and en the leaf eheethee 0f the Plant P reddish-orange pustules, Figure 16E. Mediterranean. 93»: Figure 16. Principal leaf diseases of wheat: (A) normal leaf; (B) speckled leaf blotch; (C) powdery stripe rust; (E) leaf rust; (F) stem rust on leaf; (G) stem rust on stem of plant. 22 ually does not penetrate and appear on i; of the leaf in contrast t0 the larger, _ pustules 0f stem rust which penetrate Jthrough the leaf. Leaf rust infects d may spread at temperatures below tthereby permitting it to reproduce i» much of the winter season in Texas. l1 ves are killed by low temperatures, the ually is not killed during the winter. ing resistant varieties is the only prac- s of controlling or avoiding damage ‘st. Spray materials which will control ' the plants from infection for short ire available. However, in Texas the y infect plants from the seedling stage i? urity so it is not yet practical to con- ‘isease with sprays. Fungicides which Vi» by the plant and provide protection months have been developed but have cleared by the Pure Food and Drug ration for use on food or feed products. i esent, the highest degree of resistance ‘st is found in the varieties Agent and Y: both having genes for resistance ob- .~ m related species. Arthur, Sturdy, iQuanah, Gage, Caddo and Ponca have * to many races but are susceptible to he older varieties Kaw, Crockett, Con- ” r and others were resistant when re- ,1: races are now present which can ese varieties. ‘fungi which cause the cereal rusts are _-0f many physiologic races and biotypes. " be likened to varieties of wheat. These ‘ in prevalence and ability to attack Therefore, a variety of wheat may int one year, but in another season or environment, it may be susceptible to 1 present. When a variety is resistant races but susceptible to some, the grow- 1: variety over a large area may reduce ‘l of races and permit the new races rapidly. New races originate by mu- j fusion of hyphae or during sexual ion on the alternate host of the organ- - rusts are very specific in their host af rust of wheat does not attack oats l: but may be found on a number of ted grasses. t ' rust of wheat, caused by the fungus Irtminis, Pers. f. sp. tritici Eriks and E. -. one of the most dreaded diseases be- can cause severe injury to yields and lity. If an epidemic starts before or jing time, it canTdestroy a field of wheat qweeks, making {it completely worthless, , F and G. As with leaf rust, the dis- _' used by a parasitic fungus whose ger- spore enters the plant tissue usually ystomata. Once inside the tissue, the w grows rapidly, utilizing the moisture tnutrients of the host plant and erupt- ing in 6 to 10 days as an elongated, brick-red pustule on the surface of the leaf, stem, leaf sheath, peduncle or even parts of the spike. The pustules contain thousands of microscopic spores which may be carried by wind currents to near- by plants or distant fields. The spores germinate in rain or dew and cause new infection. The host plant is weakened, may lodge, and the grain shrivels. Time of infection, weather conditions and races of rust present determine how much damage will occur. The disease is a constant hazard in Areas III, IV and V, and it occasionally causes important losses even in the lower rainfall areas of the state. A field of wheat at College Station was completely destroyed by stem rust in 1954, Figure 17. . No variety now available is resistant to all races of stem rust which occur in Texas and the Midwest. Austin was released in 1943 and Quanah in 1951 as stem-rust resistant varieties, but the epidemics of 15B in 1954 and 1955, to- gether with changes in leaf rust races, made these varieties no longer highly resistant. Kaw 61, Scout, Gage, Tascosa and Crockett have some resistance to some races but are susceptible to others. l\/Iilam has resistance to a broad group of races of both rusts and has made growing wheat in South Texas possible in recent years. However, it now is susceptible to some races of both leaf and stem rust. Stripe Rust Stripe rust, caused by Puccinia striiformis -West., is typically a cool temperature rust which occurred only in traces in Texas prior to 1957. The very cool springs and abundant rainfall of 1957 and 1958 permitted this disease to spread throughout Texas and cause extensive damage (10). Stripe rust resembles leaf rust except that the pustules develop along the leaf veins as long streaks, Figure 16D, and the spores and pustules are bright yellow in color. A considerable num- ber of hard wheat varieties are resistant to stripe rust— Kharkof, Red Chief and Ponca. Wichita, Concho, Crockett and Westar were highly sus- ceptible in 1957. Stripe rust is not a common problem in Texas. Septoria Two species of Septoria attack wheat. The speckled leaf blotch, caused by Septoria. tritici Rob. in Desm., occurs over a wide area each year but usually is relatively inconspicuous, and the damage is overlooked. Glume blotch, caused by Leptosphaeria nodorum E. Muller (conidial stage, Septofla nodorum, Berke is less common than the speckled leaf blotch. Serious epidemics oc- curred in the cool, wet spring seasons of 1935, 1941 and 1957. Lesions of the leaf blotch appear first as pale green to yellow spots on the leaf. These lesions enlarge as the fungus invades the adjoin- ing tissue. As the tissue is killed, it turns brown and, later, grey to black fruiting bodies called 23 pycnidia are formed, Figure 16B. When condi- tions are favorable for the disease, large areas 0f leaf tissue may be killed thereby reducing the effective leaf area 0f the plant and reducing yields. Varieties show different degrees 0f sus- ceptibility, but none of the adapted varieties are highly resistant. 24 Figure 17. _ destruction of g wheat by stem College Statio r .. Glume blotch occurs on the culms, nod y spikes causing blackened areas, or the culm and spike may be darkened. The ste weakened and may bend or break just a nodes. The crop lodges and is difficult vest, Figure 18. The seed may be shrivei ducing yields and quality of grain. Re Figure 18. ‘j wheat near p was seriously i. by Septoria ‘g 1941. Note b I bending of st’, - nodes. f ‘a’ . 19. Normal head of wheat (left) contrasted with ’ infected with bunt and two destroyed by loose ; is known about varietal resistance. Seed j». ent with fungicides, crop rotation and _'ng under of crop residues to prevent in- J from old straw and from volunteer plants aid in control of the disease. if ery Mildew owdery mildew, caused by Errysiphe gram/i- DC) Mérat. f. sp. tritici is important only e humid parts of the eastern half of the r Cloudy, cool weather and unpastured, rank e growth provides a favorable environment l» disease. Mildew appears on the leaf sur- .3 a mass of white mycelium, Figure 16C. ifthe epidermal cells of the leaf tissues are ed, but plant nutrients and water are taken the host plant. Forage production and i yields may be reduced if the disease at- the plants for aylong period of time. Us- ; as warmer, dry weather of spring occurs, 'sease is reduced by the lower humidity and or temperatures. A number of varieties are ent to some races of the organism. Sturdy uanah, grown in the eastern part of the are highly susceptible and may be damaged G yearS. Smuts Two smut organisms attack wheat in Texas. Loose smut, caused by Ustilago tritici (Pers.) Rostr., destroys the grain and all glume struc- tures of the spike leaving only the central stem (rachis), Figure 19. Spores produced by this fungus are spread by wind currents to healthy plants at flowering time. The spores germinate and penetrate the young wheat ovary where they remain dormant until the seed germinates. As the infected seed starts germinating, the fungus also starts developing within the plant tissue, in- vading the stem and finally replacing the spike with a mass of smut spores. Varieties differgreatly in their field reac- tion to this disease and to races of the causal fungus. Crockett, Ponca, Gage, Austin and the original Triumph strain are resistant. Some varieties are susceptible but do not develop much field infection. Other varieties become heavily infected under field conditions. Quanah, Concho, Bison, Scout and others are highly susceptible. Surface treatment with organic mercury or other fungicides is not effective in controlling loose smut because the fungus hypha is within the kernel. Formerly, it was necessary to use either a hot water treatment or an anaerobic soak treatment to control this disease. Recently, a systemic fungicide, Vitavax2, which will control loose smut by surface treatment, has been devel- oped. The fungicide may be used only on plant- ing seed for seed increase and may not be used on seed planted for forage or grain production. Stinking smut or bunt, caused by the fungus Tilletia foetida (Wallr.) Liro., differs from loose smut in that the glumes and other floral parts, including the outer wall of the kernel, remain intact and only the internal part of the kernel is replaced by smut spores, Figure 19 (center). Because these smut balls resemble seed, the spike looks normal, except when observed closely. At threshing time, the smut balls are broken, and the spores become attached or lodged in the crease or brushy end of the healthy kernel. After sow- ing, the spores germinate at the same time as the wheat seed. The fungus hypha penetrates the sprout and grows within the tissues of the plant, finally replacing the kernels with a mass of smut spores. Varieties differ in reaction to bunt, and breeding efforts to develop resistant varieties were once extensive. Comanche, Concho, Bison, Quanah and others are resistant to many races of bunt. Seed treatment with organic mercury fungicides and others are highly effective against this smut. Recently, seed treatment has become so universal that most bunt resistance breeding efforts have been reduced. Bunt infection is “Mention of a trademark name does not constitute a guar- antee or warranty of that product by the U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture or the Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station and does not imply its approval to the ex- clusion of other products that may be suitable. 25 greatly influenced by the soil temperatures at time 0f germination. Cool soil temperatures, be- low 68° F., are favorable for infection. There- fore, the disease is of more importance in Areas I and II than in other parts of the state. Root Rots Root rots of Wheat cause varying amounts of damage to the establishment of stands of wheat and to later growth of the crop. The de- gree of damage depends upon both the previous crop and the environmental conditions during a growing season. Organisms causing these dis- eases are almost universally present in soils and are potentially harmful. Important losses have occurred frequently in the Rolling and High Plains areas where continuous wheat production is practiced and there is only limited opportunity to rotate crops, Figure 20. The root rots may be caused by one organ- ism or a complex of several organisms. Organ- isms identified from diseased plants in Texas include Helminthosporium sorolcinianum Sacci. in Sarok, several species of Fusarium, Rhizoc- tonia solomi Kuhn, Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc. and others. The control of root rots is very difficult, especially under conditions of continuous wheat production. Treatment of seed with fungicides aids in control of the seedling blight stage, but this protects the young plant for only a limited period. When infected straw is present, the organisms may attack the plant nearly any time during the growing season. Crop rotation with broad-leaf plants such as guar or other legumes may reduce damage. Varieties differ in reaction 26 Figure 20. Ai fected with foot rot of Crowell, 195* thin stands y: dead spikes. i to these organisms, but none which resistance is known. Wheat Streak Mosaic Wheat streak mosaic is a virus disea causes yellow or greenish, narrow, lineaf? mittent stripes or streaks on the leaves. streaks follow the vascular bundles or rig leaf, Figure 21. Entire leaves may show c and necrosis. Plants frequently are stun the size of the spike and kernels may be Damage is related to the stage at which takes place and the percent of the plants r The virus persists in many native gra may be carried from one crop season to on these grasses or on volunteer Wheat/i The disease is carried and transmit p plant to plant by a tiny, microscopic mi pj the wheat curl mite or Eriphoid mite. T Ace/Mia tulipae (Keifer), moves from l, one plant to another plant or may be carrii distance by wind currents. The disease}; most frequently after cool wet summe there is an abundance of wild grasses an. teer wheat to serve as host plants for the mites and disease from one crop s, another. Mites will spread from fence r volunteer grain to recently planted wheat INSECTS A number of insects may cause seri, g age to wheat when conditions are favo rapid increase of populations. A descril insects attacking small grains, with s control measures, is given in Texas Agri Extension Service Miscellaneous Publica Wheat leaves infected with wheat streak publications available through the Ex- Service. .eral species of aphids attack wheat, but l; important is the greenbug, Schizaphis (Rondani). The greenbug causes a Yjristic yellowing 0r reddening of the leaf here it feeds. Plants are weakened and killed by the feeding insects. If the in- pan continues and increases, plants in large in the entire field may be killed. Green- corn leaf aphids are shown in Figure veral other species of aphids may attack ’but usually their damage is much less i: of greenbugs. Several species of aphids l.sfer the virus causing the Yellow Dwarf ‘to wheat and other cereals. ective insecticidal sprays for the control s are now available. Recommendations obtained fromthe local county agent. or not the cost of spraying is justified ‘c- determined for each situation. yther group of pests of wheat is the ites. The most important mites attack- lpf- are the brown wheat mite, Petrobie 1 Miiller) and the winter grain mite, Pen- major (Duges). Spider mites are not w, classed as insects but are tiny spiders. They dam- age the crop by cutting the leaf tissues and feed- ing on the plant juices. The winter grain mite is more frequently found in the humid areas such as Research Areas III and IV where they may greatly reduce the pasture value of the crop. This mite is easily killed by insecticides. The brown wheat mite is more frequently found in the drier sections such as Area I and II. Dam- age by this mite is difficult to demonstrate be- cause the mite usually is most numerous in dry seasons when the crop is in stress from drouth. Control with insecticides is very difficult and probably under most conditions is not justified. Armyworms, cutworms and flea beetles may occasionally attack wheat to such an extent that control measures are necessary. WEEDS Fall-sown wheat is usually relatively free of weeds if the crop becomes established quickly and develops good strong plants before cool weather. However, if small grains are grown continuously on the same land, several annuals may present problems. Johnson grass, Sorghum halapense (L.) Pers., may present a harvesting problem if harvest is delayed beyond the normal time. Numerous sprays are available for this and other grasses and weeds. Suggestions for control of weeds and grasses are published an- nually, Texas Agricultural Extension Service Bulletin 1029 (18). Figure 22. Greenbugs on wheat leaf (left); corn leaf aphids (right). ' 27 A number of winter annual grasses may in- fluence yields if allowed to develop high popula- tions. Cheat or chess, Bromus secalinus L., little barley, H ordeum pusillum Nutt., wild oats, Avena fatua L. and goat grass or joint grass, Aegilops cylindrica Host., may spread into the field from fencerows and ditches or increase under contin- uous cropping until they seriously reduce yields. Seed of many of these plants shatter before wheat harvest and the seed also may lie dormant for several years before germinating. Cultural operations before seeding and rotation of crops will usually control these grasses, but it may be nedcessary under some conditions to use herbi- c1 es. During recent years Tansy mustard, Des- curainia pinnata (Walt.) Britt., has become an important pest of Wheat production on the High Plains. Effective sprays are available for con- trol of this weed, Wiese (30). Perennial weeds, such as field bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L., require more intensive cultural and herbicide controls; the latest recommendations for control should be obtained from the local county agent. Broadleaf annual weeds may present a har- vesting problem in very wet spring seasons. Most of these can be controlled with 2,4-D and related herbicides. However, since wheat can be injured by these sprays during the period between jointing and maturity, caution should be exercised in such operations. WHEAT IMPROVEMENT Research work to develop new varieties of wheat especially adapted to Texas needs is car- ried on as part of the total small grain improve- ment program of the Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station. Extensive breeding to develop new varieties is conducted at Bushland, Denton and College Station, while variety and strain tests are conducted at from eight to twelve locations in the state. Fundamental studies of disease and insect resistance, inheritance of morpho- logical characters, quality, hybrid wheat and other phases are conducted at the main breeding stations. Varieties with many different character- istics are needed to provide growers with varie- ties adapted to their needs. Because of the wide range of climatic conditions in Texas, cold hardi- ness, drouth resistance, reaction to diseases and insects and good agronomic characteristics must be considered in developing varieties. These characteristics must be combined with good yield potential, test weight and approved milling char- acteristics for all parts of Texas. The extensive wheat breeding program at Denton is shown in Figure 23. The development of special varietal types for specific needs is illustrated in the present pro- gram to develop short statured or semidwarf varieties for irrigation and other high produc- tion levels. As approximately half the High 28 Figure 23. The extensive wheat breeding i’ Texas A&M University Agricultural Researc Denton. \J Plains acreage of wheat is now gro irrigation, lodging and excessive stra; problems of greater importance. St Caprock were released recently to w hazards. This program dates back to 1i the original short wheat, Norin 10, duced from Japan. Numerous new shd. are being tested in breeding nurseries, Research to find better varieties by the Texas Experiment Station in 18, the U.S. Department of Agriculture ment stations at Amarillo and Channi a Breeding work was started at the T‘, s Agricultural Research Station at Dentof and the first variety, Denton, was Q 1.926. Since then there has been a , series of improved varieties until al varieties have been replaced by varietie quality, higher yield potential, better sistance, lodging resistance or other characteristics, Figure 11. ' Wheat improvement is a long process. The wheat plant is self fertile- be cross-pollinated by hand to produce plant from which new types can be se parts of a wheat flower are shown in _ In making a cross to combine acteristics of two varieties, the anthe ; parts of the female parent must first ~ with hand tweezers prior to bloomin . .~.-| fln-quy- - Figure 24. Breeding nursery to developi- wheats. Quanah (tall) variety, center; s I lines on either side. . 5 female flower parts are receptive, pol- be transferred from the male parent. W seeds are necessary for the cross, but }from the hybrid must then be grown for 8 years before true-breeding selections ade for testing. Additional years of 1* tests for all characteristics in local, .1?» regional performance trials, quality ease of seed and distribution takes from j, years. However, if a new variety has 2' in yield, quality, lodging resistance characteristics, large dividends are to the growers of the state. The ad- of newly developed varieties are dem- a to growers in their own counties by gmonstrations, Figure 26. i heat in the past 10 years, major progress has ieved in the development of hybrid liThis development will permit growers dvantage of hybrid vigor as has been County Result Demonstrations permit the gobserve new varieties under his own conditions. - l} Figure 25. Floral parts of the wheat spikelet. done in corn, sorghum and several other crops. The cytoplasmic male sterility and genetic re- storer mechanisms have been found in wheat and made available to state, federal and com- mercial breeders. Problems and prospects of hybrid wheat were discussed in Texas Agricul- tural Progress (21), and a report of hybrid wheat work in Texas is given in Texas Agricul- tural Experiment Station Consolidated Progress Reports (22). The advantages of hybrid wheat include prospects of yield increases comparable to those in corn and sorghum (Briggle 7). Actual re- lease of hybrids to growers has been delayed by incomplete restoration of fertility in the final crosses. A limited amount of hybrid seed was released in 1968 by one seed company to deter- mine grower response, to give growers an oppor- tunity to observe hybrids under their conditions and to provide data on production. It appears probable that additional hybrids will soon be available. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS These investigations were conducted coopera- tively by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and the Crops Research Division, Agri- cultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Acknowledgment is made to the following people and agencies taking part in the statewide small grain performance and other trials: Lucas Reyes and Edward Neal, Texas A&M University Agricultural Research Station at Beeville; Eldon D. Cook and Ralph Baird, Blackland Research Center, Temple; J. H. Gardenhire and Eugene Wilkerson, Texas A&M University Agricultural 29 Research Station at Denton; James Mulkey, Texas A&M University Agricultural Research Station at Chillicothe; Virgil Woodfin, Texas A&M University Agricultural Research Station at Iowa Park; O. E. Smith and Roscoe W. Lewis, Texas A&M University-Prairie View Experi- ment Station, Prairie View; M. J. Norris and H. O. Hill, Texas A&M University Agricultural Research Center at McGregor. Off-station performance trials were con- ducted at Etter through the cooperation of Cecil Regier and John Shipley; at Plainview by B. M. Hughes; at Stratford by Horace Sneed; at Perry- ton by Harlan Hawk, Delbert Timmons and Doug- las Smith and at Wellington by Dwayne Scott and David Baumgardner. Acknowledgment of assistance in preparing the disease section is given to Francis J. Gough, research pathologist, Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, College Station and to Robert W. Toler, pathologist, Department of Plant Sciences. Assistance on the insect section was given by Norris Daniels, entomologist, USDA Southwest- ern Great Plains Research Center at Bushland and the quality section by L. W. Rooney, cereal chemist, Soil and Crop Sciences Department. LITERATURE CITED 1. Atkins, I. M. and M. C. Futrell. 1958. Diseases of small grains in Texas. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 921. 2. Atkins, I. M., K. B. Porter, K. A. Lahr, O. G. Merkle A and M. C. Futrell. 1960. Wheat production in Texas. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 948. 3. Atkins, I. M. 1968. Performance of small grains and flax. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Soil and Crop Sci- ences Dept. Tech. Rpt. 25 (Mimeographed). 4. Atkins, I. M. 1968. wheat, oats and barley in Texas. Sta. Prog. Rpt. 2545. 5. Atkins, I. M. et al. 1969. Forage evaluation studies. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Cons. Prog. Rpts. 2650-2656. 6. Atkins, I. M. 1969. Performance of small grains and flax in Texas, 1959-68. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 1099. 7. Briggle, Lee. 1963. Heterosis in wheat—a Review. Crop Sci. 3:407-412. 8. Cook, Eldon D. 1968. Forage production of small grains, sudan and forage sorghum. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Prog. Rpt. 2611-2615. - 9. Eck, Harold V. and Carl Fanning. 1962. Fertiliza- tion of dryland winter wheat under stubble-mulch and one-way tillage on Pullman silty clay loam. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Misc. Pub. 584. 10. Futrell, M. C. and I. M. Atkins. 1959. Unusual oc- currence of small-grain diseases in Texas in 1957 and 1958. Plant Dis. Rpt. 43:777-780. Performance of spring-sown Texas Agr. Exp. 30 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Gilmore, E. C., Lucas Reyes and V. M. Agronomic performance of spring whea Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Prog. Rpt. 2581. Holt, E. C. 1959. Small grains for f0 _l Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 944. Holt, E. o. and M. J. Norris. 1969. P management of small grains for forage. o, ; Exp. Sta. Bull. 1082. McLean, G. W. and M. J. Norris. 1968..» cotton, grain sorghumahd oat forage as? by fertilizers. Texas ‘Kgr. Exp. Sta. Rpts. 2473-2482. Marion, P. 1., o. E. Fisher and J. M. Wintering steer calves at the Spur sta Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 835. a Oswald, J. W. and B. R. Houston. 1953. I dwarf virus disease of cereal crops. Ph 43:128-136. ,1 Palmer, Cary D. 1968. Small grain statiil Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, U} ment of Agriculture, Austin, Texas (Mim Palmer, Rupert D. and J. D. Price. tions for weed control with chemicals. i Exp. Sta. Bull. 1029. Patterson, R. E. 1950. A method of adj’; calculating comparable yields in a Agron. J. 42:509-511. Fertilizing irrigated; A q. J Pope, Alex. 1963. the High Plains of Texas. Texas Agr.; MP. 688. r Porter, K. B. and 1. M. Atkins. 1963. 11 —problems, potentials and progress. " Progress 9:19-23. ' Porter, K. B. et al. 1967. Hybrid wheat“; l Texas. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Cons. r 2467-2472. Porter, K. B., T. G. Wright and Cecil ‘ r Performance of fall-sown small grain irrigated trials, 1965-67. Texas Agr. Prog. Rpt. 2548. 1: Rich, Pat A. 1967. Nitrogen and phos on standard and short stature wheats. - Exp. Sta. Prog. Rpt. 2502. Rooney, L. W., C. B. Gustafson and 1968. Milling and baking quality of wheat. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Prog. Rpt. Spence, o. o. and 1). 1. Dudley. 1965.}. phosphorus and nitrogen timing on w‘. Agr. Exp. Sta. Prog. Rpt. 2354. Sill, Webster, 11. Jr. 1959. Wheat st‘ Kansas Agricultural Situation, Aug. ' Processed. Totusck, Robert, Larry Franks, James F. and E. C. Nelson. 1968. Milo vs. wh ing cattle. Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Misc. Wehrly, J. s., John 1.. Shipley and Cecil Wheat response to spring irrigation, i. Plains of Texas. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta: 2552. :: Wiese, A. F. 1967 . Perennial weed con? west Texas. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Misc; [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] ' Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Texas A8¢M University College Station, Texas 77843 ll. O. Kunkel, Acting ,Director—Publication ‘an ‘l, United 5M0: i”